Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

a speaker arrangement idea

Tags:
  • Pro Audio
  • Speakers
  • Audio
Last response: in Home Audio
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 7:29:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I saw these "On Stage" tilt stands in a guitar center catalog:

http://www.americanmusical.com/item--i-MUS-RS7000.html

I was thinking if you placed studio monitors on them, it would bounce
the forward sound off the ceiling at an angle, and bounce the sound
backward off the floor.

So you would get all sorts of angular ray-tracing going on, and the
reflected sound would bounce around on all sorts of walls before it got
to your ears, and by that time it would be completely dispersed.

Also, I'm guessing you could put a sub between them on one of these
stands and it would help time-align the sub with the two main speakers.

So assuming you don't have interference from a desk, could this be a
good idea from a sound-wave/accuracy/room-optimization standpoint?

More about : speaker arrangement idea

Anonymous
May 5, 2005 9:28:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mr. Dorsey, could you elaborate a bit further? I know from your
previous posts that you like a bit of diffusion and monitor on
Magnepans.

I'm wondering if the person likes a close range, direct sound, why this
wouldn't be a good solution.

I'm particularly not understanding why this arrangement would smear
transients if you listen at close range.
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 9:33:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

as a further elaboration, when i'm concentrating on things of a general
nature, i like to ponder by tilting my head down a bit. this could be
anything from pondering a math problem to figuring out a murky jazz
piano chord by listening to a cd.

with my head tilted down in "thinking position" my ears would be on a
straight path with respect to the drivers.
Related resources
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 10:51:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<genericaudioperson@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>So you would get all sorts of angular ray-tracing going on, and the
>reflected sound would bounce around on all sorts of walls before it got
>to your ears, and by that time it would be completely dispersed.

Thus destroying imaging and smearing any transients.

Honestly, a little room sound is okay, but not too much.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 11:46:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

those old cube things?

i had a pair of NS-10's (another "legend" in non-linearity magic). i
guess i was in a small group of people that neither loved nor hated
them. i thought they were fine and sold them to a more eager soul once
i saw that the paper woofers were becoming an endangered species.

i've never mixed on the cubes (i think i was in a few rooms in LA back
in the day that had them), so i don't know what all the fuss is.

i do seem to like speakers that cost $5000. i've tried several
different types of speakers, and the common denominator between the
ones i thought were awesome was that they were all expensive.

the current thought I have in my head is a pair of Lipinski 707's being
driven by a pass labs x250 with the mated subwoofer. upstream from that
would be the Nautilus Commander.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 12:33:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<genericaudioperson@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Mr. Dorsey, could you elaborate a bit further? I know from your
>previous posts that you like a bit of diffusion and monitor on
>Magnepans.

Yes. The magnepans have a rear lobe that is out of phase with the
front stuff. This gives a rather distant presentation, but with a
good solid image.

>I'm wondering if the person likes a close range, direct sound, why this
>wouldn't be a good solution.

If you like a close, forward, and direct sound, you want to be hearing as
little of the room ambience as possible. That means hearing directly
from the speakers, and it means speakers with as narrow dispersion as
possible. The narrow dispersion and direct positioning is part of why
soffit-mounted horns are so forward.

>I'm particularly not understanding why this arrangement would smear
>transients if you listen at close range.

If you are listening at close range, ie. in the nearfield, it doesn't
matter. But positioning the speakers so they point anywhere but your
ears is a bad idea because you're exciting the room excessively.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
May 6, 2005 4:07:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1115332174.335086.224830@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
genericaudioperson@hotmail.com wrote:

> I saw these "On Stage" tilt stands in a guitar center catalog:
>
> http://www.americanmusical.com/item--i-MUS-RS7000.html
>
> I was thinking if you placed studio monitors on them, it would bounce
> the forward sound off the ceiling at an angle, and bounce the sound
> backward off the floor.
>
> So you would get all sorts of angular ray-tracing going on, and the
> reflected sound would bounce around on all sorts of walls before it got
> to your ears, and by that time it would be completely dispersed.
>
> Also, I'm guessing you could put a sub between them on one of these
> stands and it would help time-align the sub with the two main speakers.
>
> So assuming you don't have interference from a desk, could this be a
> good idea from a sound-wave/accuracy/room-optimization standpoint?
>

When measured anechoically most monitors aren't placed on stands of this
sort, AFAIK anyway. And any efforts to time-align the two drivers (most
studio monitors are 2way) will be wasted by changing the angle they are
placed. Not to mention off axis response/phase of the system.

Or it could be helping the system, there's no way to tell unless you set
it up and measure from the monitoring position.

This idea of course is a link or two in the chain before sound even
comes out of the drivers.. so this isn't considering any type of room
interactions that you've mentioned.

hth,

--
Cyrus

*coughcasaucedoprodigynetcough*
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 6:16:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>> I'm particularly not understanding why this arrangement would smear
>> transients if you listen at close range.


> If you are listening at close range, ie. in the nearfield, it doesn't
> matter. But positioning the speakers so they point anywhere but your
> ears is a bad idea because you're exciting the room excessively.
> --scott

I think maybe the guy wants a pair of 901's...
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 6:20:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 5/5/05 10:16 PM, in article BEA04BB4.7475%ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com,
"SSJVCmag" <ten@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote:

>
> I think maybe the guy wants a pair of 901's...

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

901's... Auratones...901's...Auratones...

Think about it...
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 11:10:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<genericaudioperson@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1115332174.335086.224830@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> I saw these "On Stage" tilt stands in a guitar center catalog:
>
> http://www.americanmusical.com/item--i-MUS-RS7000.html

I work with a couple of bands that have three guitarists in each... they
all use these things religiously and set their amps along the front line
monitor wedges facing rearward, toward the back of the stage. This
makes FOH a breeze and makes the band happy to be able to hear
each other.

> I was thinking if you placed studio monitors on them...

Don't go there... ;-)

DM
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 1:10:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

genericaudioperson@hotmail.com wrote:

> I saw these "On Stage" tilt stands in a guitar center catalog:

> http://www.americanmusical.com/item--i-MUS-RS7000.html

First I looked for how the upper part gets the angle adjusted, and it
doesn't, which means that they are not in my opinion quite as good at
what they are intended for as they could be.

> I was thinking if you placed studio monitors on them,
> it would bounce the forward sound off the ceiling at an angle,

Yeees.

> and bounce the sound backward off the floor.

I am not sure I understand what you mean, but I'll say nooo anyway.

> So you would get all sorts of angular ray-tracing going on,
> and the reflected sound would bounce around on all sorts of
> walls before it got to your ears, and by that time it would
> be completely dispersed.

Back when CBS just had discovered multimiking a guy called Bose was
quite displeased with how it sounded when he played a record. He
therefore constructed a loudspeaker that did just what you describe and
the result was a pleasant sonic image in the living room. The main, not
the only, but the main problem was/is that one gets the same sonic
perspective on all records, and not the one that is on them.

What Bose got very right was the understanding of the importance of the
relationship between direct and recorded sound, there is something to
learn for a sound recordist in the old Bose publications, but fixing the
recording at the playback end by introducing additional early
reflections from the room is the procedure known as introducing a new
error rather than fixing what is originally wrong.

Karlsson in Sweden also had a fair amount of luck with
semi-omnidirectional loudspakers, in fact the first time I heard what
real stereo is about was when listening to Beethoven's third on a pair
of Karlsson boxes at a friends of my fathers house in Stockholm.

> So assuming you don't have interference from a desk, could this be a
> good idea from a sound-wave/accuracy/room-optimization standpoint?

Summary of the above: NO! - you do need ambience and you do need natural
reflections in the room you monitor in, but you should try to avoid
additional very early reflections because they mess the stereo imaging
and perspective up and may cause frequency response issues that can
suppress or exaggerate natural formants and thus cause balancing errors.

Your hearing is quite good at autocorrelating soft frequency response
deviations away, but sharp/steep ones will tend to fool it because they
are dissimlar from the constantly occurring changes in the way the ear
works due to temporary threshold shifts and wax-amount in the ear canal.
An amazing construction ... imagine a mic manufacturer giving up on
getting the capsule response right and instead adding autocorrecting
circutry that knows how sound generally is supposed to to sound, if it
doesn't sound like that the perception is fixed, which is why you need
some time, not very long, to adjust to another set of loudspeakers.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 5:49:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

thanks Mr. Larson,

I understood some of that, but you lost me at the end.

When I say "bounce off the floor backward" what I mean is this: bass
response is omnidirectional, and even a really stiff cabinet will still
throw some stuff backwards. So since the cabinet is at an angle to the
floor, it will bounce off the floor at an angle, and then travel futher
backward. kind of like a "bounce pass" in basketball.

basically, what i'm thinking is this: let's say a studio designer makes
the back wall slanted so the sound deflects at an angle rather than
bouncing straight back at the listener. tilting the speaker cabinet on
a slant stand will have a similar effect. the sound will hit the
ceiling at an angle and then bounce in all myriad of directions. so
you don't get slap back.

the advantages to doing this seem so obvious to me, but people who are
much smarter than me keep indicating problems that i don't understand.
i feel simultaneously smart and dumb right now. kind of strange.
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 8:34:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

genericaudioperson@hotmail.com wrote:

> When I say "bounce off the floor backward" what I mean is this:
> bass response is omnidirectional

Already from this it follows that cabinet angle with respect to floor is
irrelevant in the context of what you want to address.

> basically, what i'm thinking is this: let's say a studio
> designer makes the back wall slanted so the sound deflects
> at an angle rather than bouncing straight back at the listener.

This is to prevent a midrange problem called flutter echo, the
twaaaangggg of an empty concrete room is an example of that type of
reverb.

> ceiling at an angle and then bounce in all myriad of directions.
> so you don't get slap back.

Slap back does not apply in the bass range, it is - as indicated above -
a midrange thing.

> the advantages to doing this seem so obvious to me,

With all due respect - it is a very good question to ask - you need to
understand that what you suggest is intended to help with a bass problem
that does not exist because of the large wavelength of bass compared to
the wavelength of the room.

Bass does not zingG around in a living room sized room like rays from
Flash Gordons ray gun. Midrange occasionally does, also low midrange is
likely to suffer from frequency response issues in case it is influenced
by reflections from wall, floor or ceiling.

Very many room response measurements contain a dip around 250 Hz caused
by the first reflection from the floor between loudspeaker and listener.
Place a table or a mixing desk between listener and loudspeaker,and the
reflection will have a shorter route to travel, ie. arrive less delayed,
and consequently cause a problemer higher up in the midrange and -
literally - confuse the issue in terms of perceiving the spatiality in
the recording. This stuff is what consultants living is made off ....
O;-)

> but people who are much smarter than me keep indicating problems
> that i don't understand.

Don't worry, learning is like that. More reflections is - with modesty -
better than a few, because they will cause more, but less noticeable
colourations, provided that they do not arrive too close to the direct
signal from the loudspeakers and provided that the total amount of
reflected energy is not too large, whatever that may be - one indication
of such a problem may be that the recorded space is not suffiently
perceived.

A loudspeaker problem called delayed resonance is also a great destroyer
of spatial perception if it occurs, I can still recall the listening
experience when I listened to the large horn loudspeakers with Tannoy
12" units that I ended up purchasing from Steen Duelund around 1977,
reverb - especially artificially added reverb - was so much clearer
perceived when the audio was reproduced by the compression driver than
when reproduced by his modified 8" units with acoustic lenses. Not that
they did not have "issues", but they were more precise in the time
domain than oversized paper membranes.

> i feel simultaneously smart and dumb right now. kind of strange.

Here is an experiment for you to put things right in your understanding
of the influence of reflections. Find the place where a mirror placed on
wall, ceiling or floor or table allows you to see your loudspeaker in it
when sitting in your listening chair. Place some kind of absorber on
that location, and listen for the change in the sound.

I don't know exactly what is available there, but there may be more
information about this and other room issues on the website of the guy
that sells RealTrap sound absorbers, http://www.realtraps.com. It IS
possible to diy such stuff, and bookshelves and paintings on canvas have
excellent acoustic mileage if well applied, but such items may come in
handy ready made in some context.

Mineral fiber products generally make good absorbers wisely deployed,
but they do need to be well contained so that they do not leak out in a
domestic - or other - environment and they can be quite unpleasant to
work with or on, which is why getting some absorber of some kind from a
nearby merchant can be nice if such acoustic tools are needed.

Diffusing single sharp reflections is another way to solve issues caused
by them, too much absorption can make a room dull and boring to listen
in. It can get quite unsimple. You may want to subscribe to the
newsgroup alt.sci.physics.acoustics, it is a good place to read, and
they are a helpful lot over there.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 8:54:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<genericaudioperson@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I was thinking if you placed studio monitors on them, it would bounce
> the forward sound off the ceiling at an angle, and bounce the sound
> backward off the floor.


Yes, it *would* do that. So don't.

The whole point of nearfield monitoring is to *reduce* the influence of
the room on the sound -- to create a direct path from driver to ear,
short enough that room reflections are well delayed and diminished
compared to the direct path.

Unless you have a VERY carefully designed room, the reflections will
give you bad information. Standing waves will cause nasty dips and
peaks in frequency response, and the uncontrolled and asymmetric nature
of the reflections will screw up the stereo image.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)